Of course NBC sports commentator Bob Costas has the right to speak and I will ALWAYS support and protect his right to speak, even his right to wear a button that says “Kick me, I’m an idiot” if he so chooses to wear one of those. In fact, I am grateful that the idiots are given microphones so we can learn what they are thinking, to warn others.

Some have said “we shouldn’t tell him how to do his job,” which is to imply that, for some reason, Costas’ right to be an idiot is greater than another person’s right to call him an idiot, or at least tell him he’s not doing his job well. On the contrary, someone SHOULD tell him when he’s not doing his job well. Since it probably won’t be his boss, maybe the American public is the best choice. What’s in his job title/description, anyway? Sports or Social Commentary?

When I want to learn something about sports, I might consult with a coach. That wouldn’t be Costas either, by the way. But, when we determine we want to improve society, we would be much better to consult experts in social matters, historians, psychologists, even philosophers, rather than someone who knows something about sports… and apparently next to nothing about history of tyranny.

For Bob Costas to speak on this issue doesn’t help his own cause, unless it is to say “I’m bored with talking about sports, maybe a different career would suit me better.”

In which case, Costas might begin by studying some history: Soviet Union 1926, China 1935, Hitler/Nazi Germany 1938, Cambodia 1956, Guatemala 1964, Rwanda 1979… all of those countries disarmed their citizens… just before killing millions of them. This isn’t sports and it isn’t rocket science either, it’s just history.

But, the most important point might be to point out Bob Costas’ hypocrisy. He is employed (and paid well) by an industry that promotes violence. Can you watch a night’s worth of television or movies without seeing gun violence, small explosions, large explosions… yes, a silly question. So, who is to blame for gun violence? Really, now, Bob Costas!

Fortunately, one doesn’t need to turn to Bob Costas to learn how to improve society. I kicked the MSM habit years ago so I know what I’m talking about in this regard: If everyone would turn off the television and read a history book or two instead, society would be greatly improved. Of course, that’s just my opinion, but I’m not a sports wonk or critic so take what I say with a grain of salt.

The American public could use a good education of history. We won’t get that from Bob Costas.

RELATED:

First They Came

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller (14 January 1892 – 6 March 1984) was a German anti-Nazi theologian and Lutheran pastor. He is best known as the author of the poem “First they came…”. (excerpt from Wikipedia)

Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people. Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.

RFID Chip Being Installed in Hand — Click the image for more info and to see video of the installation

It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.

This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666. —Revelation 13:11-18, NIV

If we are left the choice to accept a chip in the hand, which will it be for you? This isn’t a lighthearted question, at least for the enlightened. Mark of the Beast? Some say yes. Some don’t know. Others don’t care.

To the question, “Should I address Barack Obama as ‘President Obama’ or not?”

That’s a big question and it’s likely to keep coming up, so it should be worth exploring, shouldn’t it? Here’s ample evidence from the Congressional Record that Obama is an illegal usurper of the office of President of the U.S.

Judging from the evidence (by what else would we judge?), Barack Obama was ineligible when elected in 2008. Nothing has changed in that matter since then. Therefore, he is still not eligible and therefore, by definition, an illegal usurper to the office. Yes, he’s in the White House—that’s a problem. But he is not President and I refuse to call him that.

If you happen to disagree, I ask you to henceforth refer to me as “King.” Seem ridiculous? Yes, I think that would be.

I am not saying that Obama is the Antichrist, however, if we are unwilling to recognize a scam when we see one, I suppose we deserve to be scammed. It does make me wonder, too, when Antichrist does come, how will people recognize him if we won’t even uncover our eyes to recognize an illegal usurper in the White House? Or worse, to recognize it, then say, “It doesn’t matter” or “There’s nothing we can do about it?” As a society that once referred to itself as “We, The People,” are we really that blind? I sincerely hope not.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” —Edmund Burke

I think these are valid questions. All comments in agreement or opposing are welcomed. If you don’t feel like talking with me about it, talk with someone else about it, but don’t be silent, because that’s exactly what the enemy is hoping for.

If the citizenry ever decides that truth doesn’t matter, government will be free to use lies against us and we will have no recourse.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” —Edmund Burke

Do you want the truth? I would hope that you do. Do I want the truth? Yes, I do. If the truth is that the truth isn’t what I want it to be, it is no less the truth. So be it, I still want to know it.

If Barack Obama says on one day that he was born in Hawaii and says on another day that he was born in Kenya, then at least one of those is a lie, and possibly both are lies. Since these two claims contradict one another, and since a person only has one birthplace, both cannot be true statements. This is called logical deduction, something once taught in schools but since abandoned by most. Yet, that is exactly what Barack Obama has done, he has claimed two birthplaces and ample evidence supports my claim. It is not opinion, it is truth.

Whether Mitt Romney was born in Mexico or on Mars has absolutely no relevance to Barack Obama’s birthplace and just as important, to the fact that Barack Obama has lied at least once about his birthplace. Likewise, if George Bush is the Antichrist, as some Liberals have called him, it is irrelevant to Barack Obama’s birthplace. To introduce either one of these as arguments for whether or not Barack Obama has told the truth about his own birthplace is, again, irrelevant. Yet, often these, or similar statements, are used. They are called “straw man” arguments, which is to say they are irrelevant to the original argument. They are commonly used as distractions from the truth.

We are living, like it or not—here comes the truth—in an age of “relative truth,” a time when one person claims his or her truth is just as valid as another person’s truth. This is, at best, an innocent and ignorant misuse of language and, at worst, an outright lie intended to deceive.

Noted scholar, economist, philosopher and rational thinker, Thomas Sowell, has pointed out that often today, feelings are confused with thinking. Feeling and rational thinking are not the same. They are different processes and actually occur in different sides of the brain, as this simple chart shows: http://bitly.com/3SDG9

“The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.”—Thomas Sowell

Sadly, many our children’s teachers are primarily to blame for this mistaken teaching. They teach that every feeling is valid and I agree that is true, since a feeling has no necessary basis in fact. For example, paranoia is “unfounded or irrational fear.” So, one might feel afraid for no rational reason but the fact that the cause for the feeling is irrational doesn’t invalidate the feeling itself. But every thought or idea is not equally valid. Adolf Hitler’s idea that Jews were “less than human” conflicts with what most others believe. That may very well have been Hitler’s FEELING but it certainly was not the truth and this can be easily proven by DNA testing and logic, if not plain and simple common sense.

To use a most simple example, 2 + 2 = 4. Now, one may or may not want that to be the truth, but the fact of the matter is that it is, well, the truth. The answer is “4” today, as it was yesterday and the day before and, unless there is an astounding new revelation in mathematics, will be the truthful, factual answer tomorrow and the next day. A person’s wanting that to be true or not won’t change the truth of the matter. Likewise, one may even say this statement is only my opinion, but that makes it no less the truth.

And that brings us to a fact about facts: Today, facts are often considered either true or false and sometimes contradictory answers are both considered “fact” or “truth.” But, once, when logic and rational thought ruled our great universities and schools, only valid facts were considered to be true. Just because one attempts to change that fact by changing language or chooses to adopt a different meaning for the word “fact” doesn’t make it true. That’s called opinion and everyone has one. And, while everyone is entitled to his own opinion, everyone is not rightly entitled to his own facts or truth. Ironically, as Barack Obama once said, “Words matter.”

Here’s an example of the problem caused by “relative truth” or “facts” based on nothing more than opinions: The URL at the end of this paragraph links to various definitions of the word FACT, as provided by users of the website Answers.com which, as its name accurately implies, provides answers to questions. Those answers are not necessarily facts, however and, in fact, it is a leading website of misinformation provided by many ignorant (unknowing), misguided, or dishonest users who post answers there. http://yhoo.it/ST8QfK

It should be easy for two persons to agree on the definitions provided by Dictionary.com but how will there ever be consensus based on the broad range of answers found at Answers.com?

Do you see the problem with confusing “answers” with “fact” or “truth?” Hopefully, you do. If not, you are left with relative truth, for which the first assumption is that “all truth is relative.” That statement, in and of itself, doesn’t stand to any test of logic or application of rational thought. It is actually an absolute claim that there are no absolute claims. Logically, that makes it an impossibility. Believe it or not, children are being taught this in schools and, my opinion, it will be the downfall of reasonable society if allowed to perpetuate as a valid concept, as it is being promoted today.

And there you have it, the truth, the truth about facts, the facts about truth and my opinion of what’s wrong with relative truth, that it is nothing more than a glorified lie. And that, my friends, is the truth, whether or not it is what someone wants to hear.

McCallum addresses the question of “Whatever Happened to Truth?” America is in the midst of a revolution in thinking that impacts every conceivable aspect of life. Postmodernism, the guiding spirit of our times, teaches that things like reason and rationality are cultural biases, and that truth—especially God’s truth—doesn’t exist; A society that forsakes truth believes that all lifestyles, religions, and worldviews are equally valid; The only real sin is criticizing someone else’s views or moral choices; Opinions matter as much as evidence; Reality is in the mind of the beholder.

“We are becoming a nation of people who are propagandized from elementary school through graduate school in a certain vision of the world and only the ones who, for one reason or another, either experience or insight, lead them to say ‘wait a minute’, only those are the ones we have to depend on.” —Thomas Sowell

Like this:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller (14 January 1892 – 6 March 1984) was a German anti-Nazi theologian and Lutheran pastor. He is best known as the author of the poem “First they came…”. (excerpt from Wikipedia)

“About the Time of the End, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the Prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition.” —Sir Isaac Newton